Talk:Helgoland-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Since the article seems to be in American English, I've changed the tonne measurements to metric tons. If my assumption is correct, then, the two infobox items should be armor and draft, as well
   • There were a lot of little niggling things (missing unit conversions, punctuation, etc.) that would take longer to note in a list, so I have fixed them. I did notice some inconsistency to conversion of gun sizes given in inches: in the lead they were converted to mm but cm everywhere else, so I changed those in the lead. If that's not right, please feel free to change.
   • General characteristics, P1, S2: the they after the semicolon is ambiguous. I'm sure it refers to the Helgolands, but coming right after the mention of the Nassaus, it's not clear. Also, since the Helgolands displacement is compared to the Nassaus, what is it?
   • Propulsion, P1, S2: same as above: These could be taken to refer to RN steam turbines

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • There seem to be no images at commons of Thüringen, but there are a couple of Oldenburg that might be better than having three photos of Ostfriesland; File:SMS Ostfriesland.JPG seems to be the least useful to the article. Also, have you considered File:High Seas Fleet 1st and 2nd battleship squadrons HD-SN-99-02145.JPG? Might be a good addition to the "History" section, especially if the Helgolands are up front

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments (which don't affect GA nomination):

• In the Design section, there's almost an assumption that the reader has read and/or is familiar with the Nassau class, which may not be the case. Perhaps the Helgoland class details could be discussed and all of the comparisons to the Nassau ships could be consolidated into a separate section. Also, you might consider comparisons between the Helgoland ships and to the later German dreadnought classes, too.

Just the few prose issues above keep this from passing. I'm placing on hold for seven days, but I'm sure you'll be able to address them easily enough. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got the prose issues you pointed out fixed, and I switched the conversions to all be metric-first (since the Germans used the metric system). I was thinking that at some point (when I have the free time), I'd write a section similar to this one that would expound more on the design process (i.e., how the Nassau class design was improved/reworked into the Helgoland design). Comparisons to the later designs would also be helpful. That'll have to wait at least until next week though; papers for school to write and whatnot :) Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't add the Oldenburg photos since they don't really show the ship; they're more about the Kaiser and his entourage, the ship is more of just the background. Especially since there isn't any mention in the text of the Kaiser's visit to the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)